Questioning Marx, Critiquing Marxism Reflections on the

5

Questioning Marx, Critiquing MarxismReflections on the Ideological Crisis on the Left

FRANCISCO NEMENZO JR.

While celebrating the collapse of communist regimes in EasternEurope, the ideologues of capitalism cannot gloss over the parallel crisisthat is tearing apart the major capitalist societies. They declare Marxismdead, but "the grave-diggers of capitalism" hound them everywhere. For aslong as capitalism continues to devastate the lives of the working peopleMarxism will always be relevant as a method of analysis. Some Marxistparties, however, are making themselves irrelevant by holding fast tooutdated doctrines and pursuing political lines that have lost the power toconvince.

The crisis of Marxism may serve as the impetus for a Marxist renewalif it jolts these parties out of complacency and forces them to re-examinewhat they had taken for granted. To turn the crisis into an opportunity theymust reaffirm the democratic and humanist values of Marxism, rescue itfrom the curse of Stalin, and bring it to where marx stood � on the side offreedom in the struggle for democracy.

This paper grew out of a lecture where I tried to provoke the defendersof the faith with what iI though were outrageously heretical ideas. To mygreat disappointment, everyone (including the former Communist Party ofthe Philippines [CPP] Chairman and New People's Army [NPA] commander-in-chief Rodolfo Salas) tacitly agreed even with those points on which I wasmost uncertain. But some approached me afterwards to express theirprivate thoughts. I benefited immensely from their suggestions. As a result,this paper is substantially different from the one I delivered. Heeding theircriticism that I covered too broad a range of issues, I dropped the sectionson religion and the class structure to focus on the issue of democracy.

On account of recent developments I should point out that I gave thelecture before the rift in the CPP hit the front pages. None of what I said

6 FRANCISCO NEMENZO JR.

then or what I write in this paper should be construed as meddling in theirsquabble. Being an outsider, the internal problems of the CPP are none ofmy business. I am only concerned with the larger debate between thesocialist and capitalist ideologies.

The Third World Studies Center (which co-sponsored my lecture withthe Department of Political Science) expected me to concentrate on thePhilippine Left. But I am obliged to devote much space to historicalflashbacks to set the most controversial Marxist ideas in their WestEuropean, Russian, and Chinese milieu. This also underscores the fact thatMarxism is an international and not a distinctly Filipino phenomenon.

Unlocking a Closed System

The method of dialectical reasoning starts from the proposition thateverything changes except the necessity for change; and a theory aboutsocial change must change with changing times. This applies to Marxismas well. Marxism as we know it today has incorporated the ideas of Marxistsafter Marx. Lenin updated the analysis of industrial capitalism in DasKapital to contend with the rise of finance capital and the globalization ofcapitalism. Stalin, Mao, and a host of lesser figures also contributed ideaswhich were not always consistent with Marx's original formulations an datcrucial points departed from the values that inspired his thinking.

The scientific and technological revolution has brought changes in thenature and modus operandi of capitalism. But instead of trying to decipherthe meaning of these changes and confronting capitalism and what it hasbecome at the end of the 20th century, the benighted bureaucrats in Chinaand the Soviet Union denied that capitalism has changed, thus turningMarxism into a closed system.

This dogmatizing tendency reared its ugly head in the lifetime of Marx.In a letter to Engels in 1858, he deplored the mechanical application ofhis method to scientific investigation. A dialectical analysis of history, heinsisted, requires careful verification of facts and a thorough critique ofprevious theories. Expressing similar apprehension, Engels wrote to PaulErnest in 1890 to denounce the habit of twisting facts to support an a prioridoctrine. Engels reiterated this two months later in a note to ConradSchmidt:

7QUESTIONING MARX, CRITIQUING MARXISM

Our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a leverfor [the reconstruction of reality to fit a predetermined mold] in themanner of the Hegelians. All history must be studied afresh, theconditions of existence of the different social formations must beexamined individually before any attempt is made to deduce from themthe political, civil-legal, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc. notionscorresponding to them.

For good reason, Lenin attacked those German Marxists and theirRussian followers who sought to strip Marxism of its revolutionary elan torationalize their own preoccupation with electoral politics. Although he waby now means a dogmatist, Lenin supplied the vocabulary for dogmatization.In branding the parliamentary cretins "revisionists" and "deviationists," heimplied that Marxism is impervious to modification. Ironically, Leninhimself was most refreshing when he transcended Marx and, in the spiritof dialectical materialism, revised and deviated from his formulations whilereaffirming his basic values.

Filipinos have accumulated a wealth of revolutionary experience datingback to the Katipunan, but Filipino Marxists have contributed little ofconsequence to revolutionary theory outside the area of military strategyand tactics. They have been to absorbed in day-to-day struggles to botherwith the intricacies of theory. What passes for theoretical work consists ofdecorating pragmatic decisions with appropriate jargon and quotations.

Mao set a fine example by inventing new categories for the classanalysis of Chinese society. But Mao Zedong Thought itself was dogmatizedduring the cultural revolution and it came to the Philippines in this form. Theactivists of the First Quarter Storm brandished the little red book like atalisman and recited quotations like shamanistic incantations.

Quotation-mongering, flag waving, and fist clenching may have sufficedat the early stage when the basic ideas were just being sowed and the maintask was to rouse the enthusiasm of new converts. But these symbolicgestures get stale over time and become counter-productive as therevolutionary process ascends to higher stages, inducing suddent shifts inthe adversary's responses.

While theory grows out of practice, practice alone does not advancetheory. Theory develops through critical reflections on the meaning and


significance of practical experience. Since social change � the subjectmatter of Marxism � is an extremely complex process, divergentinterpretations inevitably arise. Debates on the meaning and significanceof practical experience are therefore indispensable to the life of arevolutionary movement.

Lively debates marked the history of international socialism unitl theStalinists, in the name of party discipline, tried to make a virtue out ofconformity. This retarded the growth of Marxism in the most politicallysignificant section of the Left. Unaccustomed to civilized discourse, theytend to be unduly acrimonious when debating among themselves. Insteadof critiquing the theory upon which a flawed policy is grounded, exponentsof contending positions assault each other's honor with unmitigatedviciousness.

Scared of being branded "revisionist" or "deviationist," party cadresswallowed every word in the approved texts like little kids memorizing thechurch doctrines preparatory to their first communion. This form of moraland intellectual terrorism fostered a false sense of solidarity. It stifledcreativity and encouraged mindless devotion, making the "true believers"vulnerable to the sophisticated propaganda of conservatism and bourgeoisliberalism.

In this period of crisis it is imperative to study the Marxist classics onceagain and distinguish what is essential to Marxism from the Stalinist andMaoist perversions. Since Marx's, Engels's, and Lenin's work were polemical,one is better able to appreciate their genius by knowing how the recipientsof their venom argued their case. Those heretics whom the officialcommunist parties had consigned to the dustbin of history � Kautsky,Plekhanov, Luxemburg, Pannekoek, Korsch, Bukharin, etc. � may haveideas which later events vindicated. Dismissing them without finding outwhat they stood for is like the behavior of monks in the days of Torquemada.

Proscribing their books has impoverished Marxism. By suppressingdissent, the communist parties diminished the credibility of Marxism as aliberative ideology. This is a historical paradox because Marx and Engelsrepresented the radical wing of the democratic movement. They playedactive roles in the Chartist movement of England. In Germany NeueRheinische Zeitung, a newspaper Marx edited in 1848-49, bitterlyopposed press censorship and the arbitrary exercise of state power. Marx


insisted that the struggle for democracy must first be won before there isany chance of gaining socialist reforms. In the 19th century, the communistsstood in the forefront of campaigns for universal suffrage whilst the liberalbourgeoisie would restrict political rights to the wealthy.

In the Philippines, the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP, the oldCommunist Party of the Philippines) formed the most aggressive guerillaforce against Japanese fascism. In 1972, the CPP mobilized the resistanceto martial law. An honest and well rounded study of recent history must notoverlook their contributions to the defence of democracy. Nonetheless, thecommunists ought to ask themselves why, despite their valiant efforts,peoplestill regard them with contempt. To ascribe all this solely to the influenceof reactionary propaganda begs the question why the reactionaries havebeen made more influential.

Can people be blamed for suspecting that communists are motivatedby cynical calculations of what would bring them tactical advantages? Theirloud and monotonous protestations ring hollow in the absence of innerparty democracy. The authoritarian and repressive character of the regimestheir comrades established wherever they gained an upperhand reinforcedthis impression. This stigma they must shake off, otherwise they wouldremain at the periphery in the continuing struggle for democracy

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

How did Marx and Engels reconcile democracy with the �dictatorship ofthe proletariat?� From the dialectical standpoint, this is a non-problem.Democracy and dictatorship are two sides of a coin; they are essentialaspects of the state, of any state. For instances, ancient Athens was ademocracy only to the male citizens but a dictatorship over slaves, women,and immigrants who comprised the vast majority. So also is capitalistdemocracy a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. In thissense, Marx and Engels referred to the �dictatorship of the proletariat� asa higher from of democracy; a democracy of the majority and a dictatorshipover the few.

If what they aim to establish is a democratic system where theproletariat is the hegemonic class, why insist on this ugly word �dictatorshipof the proletariat?� What is so sacred about it? What makes it sinful to usea synonym?


Not many people think along dialectical lines. The belief that democracyand dictatorship are irreconcilable opposites has been drilled into thebrains of ordinary Filipinos. The term �dictatorship of the proletariat�confuses those who assume that dictatorship implies rejection of democracy.

It must be admitted, however, that the stress on dictatorship makessense in the context of Stalinism, for that is what Stalinism is - adictatorship of the party in the name of the proletariat. This helps legitimizethe denial of democratic rights within the party and in the Stalinist regimes.It must be admitted also that the Stalinist from part of the larger Marxisttradition, albeit the most embarrassing part.

But do not blame Marx and Engels for the Stalinists. They had adifferent understanding of the term. For instance, Engels pointed to theParis Commune of 1871 as the living example of the �dictatorship of theproletariat.� This reveals another dimension of their politics because theParis Commune represents the most radical form of democratic governance.It instituted a system of direct people�s participation as opposed to therepresentative system favored by the bourgeoisie. In citing it to illustrate the�dictatorship of the proletariat,� he projected a conception of democracywhich entails the unmediated involvement of the workers in the affairs ofstate.

By contrast, the representative system in the bourgeois republicsrestricts working class participation to the act of voting; in the word of Lenin,�to choose once every few years who among the candidates of theexploiting classes are to represent and repress them in parliament.� As inthe Philippines today, the electorate is but a manipulable mass duringelections and a passive spectator in between elections. Policy making ina bourgeois republic is the domain of elective officials, their factotums ,and their financiers.

Marxism regards the institutions of a bourgeois state (parliament, forinstance) as arenas for the class struggle but looks for other structures (lesssusceptible to bourgeois manipulation) to serve as organs of people�spower. This is why

Marx was enthusiastic about the Paris Commune and Lenin about theSoviets.


�Soviet� is a Russian word for �council.� In 1917, the revolutionarymasses spontaneously created �soviets� to fill in the vacuum left by Tsarism.All deputies to the Soviets were elected by the workers, peasants, andsoldiers on the basis of universal suffrage. Unlike our senators andcongressmen, they had no fixed terms; they were subject to recallwhenever their constituents lost confidence in them. Moreover, the Sovietswielded power not only in the political sphere but also in the economic. Inthe economic sphere, they served as organs for workers� control. Noequivalent structure in the bourgeois political system could be moredemocratic.

The Stalinist Perversion

The War of Intervention (191&21) waged against the young Sovietrepublic by the US, Britain, France, Japan, etc. in collusion with the localcounter-revolutionaries prompted Lenin to disband the All-Russian Congressof Soviets. That emergency measure was analogous to the suspension ofelections by Winston Churchill when Britain was under siege. Looking backwith the benefit of hindsight, however, the dissolution of the originalSoviets and their resurrection as rubber-stamp assemblies was a fatalerror because it removed a countervailing force to one-man rule.

Lenin also suspended workers� control, the central item in his programof government. Besides the difficulty of instituting such a radical reform inthe midst of war, he realized that the barely literate Russian workers wereincapable of managing the economy. Under the �New Economic Policy�(NEP), he invited the professional managers back but only for a limitedperiod stipulated in their contracts. During this period he hoped the workingclass would gain the necessary knowledge and skills to exercise workers�control. He envisioned a time when the professional managers wouldbecome superfluous and workers� control could be put into effect.

Although Stalin fancied himself as the supreme interpreter of Marxism-Leninism, the course he pursued from 1928 onwards rebuffed Lenin�svision of proletarian democracy. In lieu of workers� control, he favored anadministrative-command economy where �experts� would manage stateenterprises on behalf of the workers. This is the essence of Stalinism whichsurvived the attempts at �de-Stalinization� by Khruschev and his successors.Let me quote Ralph Miliband�s characterization of this model:


Even though Communist regimes [in Eastern Europe and Asia] havediffered from each other in various ways, they have all had two overridingcharacteristics in common: an economy in which the means of economicactivity were overwhelmingly under state ownership and control; and apolitical system in which the Communist Party ..., or rather its leaders,enjoyed a virtual monopoly of power, which was vigilantly defendedagainst any form of dissent by systematic � often savage � repression.The system entailed an extreme inflation of state power and,correspondingly, a stifling of all social forces not controlled by, andsubservient to the leadership of the Party/state.

At his deathbed Lenin tried to frustrate Stalin�s scheme to institutionalizeone-man rule, but it was too late. He was too sick to rally the Party. Theinstructions he dictated to his wife were intercepted. Stalin went to theextent of threatening Krupskaya that he would proclaim another woman asLenin�s widow.

However, the old Bolsheviks on their own opposed Stalinism afterLenin passed away. But instead of engaging them in a principled debate(the way Lenin handled internal opposition), Stalin unleashed the secretpolice (LJGPO, later renamed KGB) to silence and eventually execute themin the �Great Purge.�

It should be borne in mind that the resistance to Stalinism came fromwithin the Communist Party of the Soviet Union itself. Those who perishedin the �Great Purge� were not the precursors of Yeltsin but Lenin�scomrades-in-arms who dared to uphold the democratic tradition ofMarxism. At the 20th CPSU Congress, Khrushchev pretended to honorthese old Bolsheviks with a posthumous rehabilitation, but that did notrepair the damage. While repudiating the �cult of personality,� Khrushchevpreserved the essence of Stalinism. Brezhnev did worse by restoring all itsugliest features and deployed Soviet tanks to save the Stalinist system inPoland. Outside the USSR, communist parties, whether in power or inopposition, paid lip service to inner-party democracy and rallied against the�personality cult� but continued to practice authoritarian leadership.

It was this monstrosity that fell apart in Eastern Europe.


The Vanguard Party

Some early socialists (e.g.. Saint-Simon and Fourier) indulged indaydreaming and waited for an enlightened capitalist to fund their dreams,while others (e.g., Babeuf and Blanqui) formed conspiratorial groups tosnatch political power by coup d�etat. Marx repudiated both. His conceptof revolution relied on the active participation of the toiling masses. AsBertolt Brecht (the famous Marxist playwright and composer) put it in asong: �The liberation of the working class is the job of the workers alone.�

While Marx assigned a vital role to the spontaneous component, healso recognized the need for an organized core (a political party) to stir andsteer the spontaneous activities of the proletariat: �Against the collectivepower of propertied classes, the working class cannot act as a class exceptby constituting itself into a political party distinct from and opposed to allold parties formed from the propertied classes.�

But nowhere did Marx build a systematic theory of the proletarianparty. That task had to wait for Lenin. The concept of a vanguard party isone of Lenin�s most valuable innovations. In What Is To Be Done?, Leninlaunched a tirade against those Russian Marxists who called themselves�Economists.� The latter believed that the proletariat would make arevolution spontaneously, in response to their dire economic situation. Theidea of a vanguard was anathema to the �Economists;� they believed thatan organized core would dilute the purity of a proletarian revolution.

Lenin argued that, left to their own devices, the proletariat would onlyacquire trade union consciousness, not revolutionary consciousness.Revolutionary consciousness has to be �introduced from without.� Inculcatingit is the principal task of �a party of a new type.� But the party would exerciseits vanguard role through education, not through manipulation by a networkof political officers who receive orders from the party leadership. Only whenthey are imbued with revolutionary consciousness will the labor movementacquire a dynamic of its own.

What happened to our so-called �EDSA revolution� confirmed Lenin�sthesis. In 1986 some of us (myself included) were mesmerized by thedramatic turn of events, giving birth to a tendency of glorifying spontaneity.This is evident in BISIG�s programmatic statement, The Socialist Vision. AsBISIG chairman then, my speeches echoed this naive idea. I toyed around


with the theory that Filipinos are a distinct breed. Whenever we organizeanything in a systematic way, we fail; but when each one does his own thinghis way, we succeed. I interpreted the snap election campaign and theEDSA uprising as the triumph of spontaneity over vanguardism. BISIG�s callfor. popular assemblies expressed a hope that the spontaneous movementwould acquire some loose structure based on the principle of �initiative andself-activity from below.�

Critiquing that theory in the light of what happened later, I am nowpersuaded that a group, no matter how small, can trigger a spontaneousupheaval if it has access to mass media; but without an organized core aspontaneous movement cannot sustain the revolutionary momentum andbecome a force for structural change. There is need for an organized corewith a longer view and a clearer vision. A movement held together by ashallow understanding of the political reality and a nebulous vision of apreferred future will dissipate once the participants perceive their immediategrievances to have been met.

The key question is the relationship between the vanguard and themasses. Let us recall that the spontaneous or unorganized elements atEDSA saw Marcos as the sole problem. Once he was forced out ofMalacañang, they believed that all that had to be done was to cleanse thegovernment of Marcos loyalists. The movement thus disintegrated, leavingthe future to C9ry�s retinue of technocrats and spiritual advisers.

Disbelieving in a revolution they did not lead, the Bourbons of the Leftcommitted the opposite mistake of dismissing the popular uprising as thehandiwork of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Ramos-Enrilemilitary clique. They declared that Cory was no different from Marcos.

Hence, no effort was made to analyze the change from the Marxiststandpoint. This undermined their credibility since only dyed-in-the-wooldoctrinaires could believe that nothing had changed or that Cory wasMarcos in a yellow skirt.

Lenin once said: �Without a revolutionary theory there can be norevolutionary movement.� Assiduous theoretical effort is required tounderstand the change from Marcos to Cory and revise the line of march.Denying that a change has occurred to justify the old line proved to be aformula for disaster. It goes without saying that theoretical work cannot be


left to the spontaneous movement. A party must undertake it and translateit into meaningful calls for action. The key question, as I said, is how theparty should relate to the masses.

Lenin specified the characteristics of such a party. Thinking in thecontext of Tsarist Russia where super-efficient spies were trained toinfiltrate radical groups (including the liberals), he insisted that the partymust be organized along conspiratorial lines. Like the secret police itself,it must be compartmentalized and each member trained to maintainutmost secrecy. Like the secret police it should also be hierarchical instructure with a clear chain of command. Furthermore, the party mustenforce iron discipline among its members.

This is difficult to implement in the Philippine cultural milieu. A codeof silence � what the Russians call konspiratsiya and the Mafiosi callomerta � is impossible among a people who take rumor-mongering as afavorite sport. Our irrepressible transparency is a weakness from one pointof view, but a virtue from another. Our legendary incapacity to keep secretsis probably the best guarantee that no conspiratorial group can stay inpower long enough to consolidate a dictatorship.

Lenin�s concept of a vanguard party elicited a sharp rebuke from RosaLuxemburg, a revered figure in the international socialist movement. Shewarned that a conspiratorial party would eventually substitute itself for theproletariat and the leaders would substitute themselves for the party. Thiswould strangle democracy and the �dictatorship of the proletariat� wouldend up as a dictatorship of the party over the proletariat.

Lenin replied that the vanguard party would work among the proletariat,not usurp its role as maker of history. He was confident that inner-partydemocracy would check any authoritarian tendency. Unlike a debatingsociety, however, the minority must submit to the majority, and the lowerorgans must submit to the higher organs. This principle of �democraticcentralism� would combine inner-party democracy with centralizeddiscipline, Lenin thought.

However, the experiences of communist parties all over the worldconfirmed Luxemburg�s worst fears. What is to prevent democratic centralismfrom degenerating into pure centralism? What is to keep inner-partydemocracy from degenerating into an empty ritual? What would ensure


that the positions of the minority in the leadership or the ideas of the lowerorgans are transmitted accurately and fairly if the secretariat enjoys amonopoly over all communication channels? These are unresolved problemsin communist parties throughout the world.

With their penchant for over-simplification, the Stalinists claim thatthe party ipso facto represents the proletariat, never mind if there are onlya few workers in the ranks. Whatever stand it takes, that is the voice of theproletariat. The party then defends its vanguard role by crushing any Leftorganization outside its control.

Lack of inner-party democracy has fomented sectarian squabbles andbureaucratized the party even before attaining power. This is also the banethat keeps it out of power. It is significant that, with the exception ofVietnam, none of the successful revolutions since 1949 was led byStalinist parties. In Cuba, Nicaragua, Algeria, Mozambique, Angola, etc.,revolutions were led by non-communist revolutionaries (Fidel Castroembraced communism when he was already in power). Learning from thisexperience, the Partido Comunista Salvadorense and the South AfricanCommunist Party had the good sense of submerging themselves intobroader organizations and refrained from claiming any special status.

A revolutionary party cannot be taken seriously as a democratic forceunless it practices democracy within. A party of the Stalinist type, despoticand bigoted, is absolutely without moral ground to denounce therepressiveness of the bourgeois state. The experience of communistparties in Eastern Europe has shown that Stalinist style of leadershipattracts only the careerists and the mindless herd who must have leadersto tell them how to think and what to do. Those with minds of their own� as revolutionaries typically do � eventually get disenchanted.

Pluralism or One-Party Rule

The aim of every political party � leftist, centrist, or rightist � is tocapture the commanding heights of government and the economy. It strivesto fill all positions of authority with persons committed to its program. TheMarxist party is no different. Another issue is the relationship between theparty in power and the parties in opposition.


In the Stalinist model, the party constitutes itself into a ruling cliquewith absolute monopoly of power in the state and civil society. Thisaccounts for the Communist Party�s totalitarian image. The events inEastern Europe bared the fragility of a political system built on this model.Party monopoly of power has a way of corrupting and alienating it from thepopulace.

While professing to be a Stalinist, Mao prescribed an antidote forStalinism: to sustain the revolutionary momentum, the Marxists shouldwage a continuing revolution by constantly mobilizing the masses against�persons in (party and government) authority taking the capitalist road.� Theslogan of the cultural revolution � �Bombard the Headquarters� � wouldbe denounced by Deng Xiaopeng as anti-party. Indeed it was aimed at theparty bureaucracy that Deng and Liu Shaoqi personified.

Nowhere in the works of Marx and Engels can we find an ideologicalsupport for one-party rule. Neither was this part of Lenin�s program. Afterthe October Revolution, he even invited the Menshevik and SocialRevolutionary parties to join a coalition government. One-party state wasa necessity imposed on the Bolsheviks by the other parties themselves.Instead of responding to Lenin�s call for a coalition government or playingthe role of legal opposition in the socialist political system, they chose togo underground and, backed by foreign powers, launched a civil war.

There is some truth to G. K. Chesterton�s dictum that �Power corruptsand absolute power corrupts absolutely.� Information that surfaced in thetrial of the �Gang of Four� and during the glasnost period in the Soviet Unionrevealed the extent of corruption in the ruling communist parties. Partybureaucrats endowed themselves with enormous privileges while theirpeoples lacked the basic necessities of life. This nurtured complacency andlack of inertia, and led to their ultimate isolation.

As vanguard, the party should, when the situation requires, mobilizethe masses to check the abuses of persons in authority; in Sandinistalanguage, to �govern from below.� Just as the bourgeoisie wield powerwithout themselves entering the public service, the working class canexercise hegemony by exerting constant pressure on the socialist government.As the proletariat advances to higher levels of consciousness and skills,government authority should dwindle accordingly. The state may never�wither away� as Marx and Engels thought, but its coercive authority can be


replaced with social authority. Only in this context is it possible for freedomto flourish among the �wretched of the earth.�

Pluralism is a bourgeois liberal doctrine that ought to be preserved andenriched in the socialist revolution. It is not incompatible with socialism.The tension that arises through political competition would serve as aconstant reminder that the party must earn the allegiance of the masses.Of course, no state would tolerate an opposition party that resorts to violentmethods and solicits support from foreign powers. But this should neverbe an excuse for suppressing any opposition.

Forms of Struggle

Mao�s dictum that �political power grows out of the barrel of the gun�states in colorful language what all political scientists take for granted.Politics, whether conventional or revolutionary, deals with the question ofpower. Authority is nothing but legitimized power; behind every law is athreat of punitive action; and the state is a source of legitimate violence.

What makes a revolution is not the amount of blood spilled in thetransfer of power but its social consequences. More people die inPhilippine elections than those who perished in the 1917 revolution inRussia. What was bloody in Russia was not the revolution itself but thedefense of the revolution against the white armies and the foreigninterventionists.

The necessity of violence has been a perennial issue among Marxists.As in other issues, Marxism gives no straightforward answer. It all dependson the concrete situation. While recognizing the necessity of armed struggleunder repressive conditions, Marx never said that armed struggle is the onlyway, or that it is the highest form of struggle to which all others must besubordinated. In an address to the First International Congress at TheHague, he allowed for the possibility of peaceful revolution occurring in theUS, Britain, and Holland. The American socialist Eugene Debs expressedthis attitude which Marx shared: �Peacefully if we can, violently if we must.�

It was utterly ridiculous of the PKP to advocate parliamentary struggleafter Marcos had disbanded Congress. When the dictatorship collapsed,however, new possibilities emerged for other forms of struggle. But the CPPhardliners go to the other extreme of refusing to recognize these possibilities


or take a cynical stance, insisting that the democratic space is an illusion.The Mendiola massacre lent credibility to this, but the CPP ought tocarefully assess whether the masses think likewise, lest it run the risk ofbeing isolated.

Another variable that ought to be considered is the internationalmilieu. What are the prospects of people�s war now that the Soviet Unionno longer exists and China has lost interest in revolutionary movementsoverseas. True, the NPA has demonstrated its capacity to survive withoutexternal assistance. But the question must be asked: Perchance it wins,can a communist regime that seized power through armed strugglewithstand a US-backed counter-revolution without the deterrent power ofthe Soviet Union?

The Partido Demokratikong Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PDSP) and Marxistgroups that opted for non-violent strategies weaken their position byequating open political struggle with participation in electoral contests. Asa strategic line, this is even more hopeless than people�s war. Do they trulybelieve that a party seeking genuine social reforms can gain control ofgovernment under the present electoral system? Yes, they ought toparticipate in elections, but they should have no illusion of achieving socialreforms through a corrupt electoral process where guns, goons, and goldare decisive.

At this stage the top priority in the political struggle ought to be acampaign for electoral reforms. The issue of a parliamentary versus apresidential system is secondary. Primary is the issue of proportionalrepresentation (the party list being a refinement of this) versus representationper district. The present system of representation perpetuates the statusquo because the trapos (traditional politicians) are more able to utilize thelingering feudal attitudes to entrench themselves in most districts in thecountry.

Principled program-oriented parties have no chance in this system.Until it is changed (if ever), the Left ought to pursue pressure politics as themain form of struggle. As the most ideologically advanced component ofthe Left, Filipino Marxists should develop the theory of pressure politics;this is potentially one area where they can make a truly original contribution.


While they are unlikely to gain a decisive role in government throughelections, they should seek to �rule from below�: to block anti-peoplelegislation and policies and press for genuine social reforms. Just as thebourgeoisie are able to wield power while refraining from public office, theLeft need not pack the government with its cadres to protect and promotethe people�s interests.

The chances of persuading an elite-dominated and ideologicallyconservative constituent assembly to adopt the party list system is next tonil. The best hope for electoral reform rests on the current peace process.Unfortunately none of the armed groups with whom the government isnegotiating seem to appreciate the need for proportional representation.Left groups that wish to play the electoral game should therefore try topersuade the National Democratic Front (NDF), the RebolusyonaryongAlyansang Makabayan (RAM), and the Moro National Liberation Front(MNLF) to take up this project.

A political settlement of the armed conflict need not appear as adefeat for the rebels if the latter are able to extract substantive concessions.Were it not for their demonstrated military strength, the conservatives ingovernment would never listen to them. If they can force them to listen nowand heed the clamor for electoral reforms, that would be a great victory forthe armed struggle.

Inadvertently perhaps, Lenin encouraged adventurism � what hehimself branded as �an infantile disorder� � by defining the objective ofrevolution as nothing less than smashing the existing state machine. Thosewho take his words as dogma are wont to compromise � something hehimself thought necessary under some circumstances � and fight forreforms that would open up political space for the development of workingclass hegemony. This all or nothing attitude is a debilitating form ofdogmatism.

Private Property and Centralized Planning

The abolition of private ownership is believed to be essential toMarxism. This is wrong. For Marx, the goal is social ownership of theinstruments of social production � not all instruments of production, butonly the instruments of social production, meaning the tools which requirecollective labor power. These, rather than private property in general, are


the source of exploitation, the mechanism for extraction of surplus value.Private ownership of sari-sari stores, fishing boats, food stalls, and smallfactories may exist side by side with state industries, banks, transportsystems, and public utilities.

Moreover, Marx did not equate social ownership with state ownership.He recognized the cooperatives as a structure for social ownership. Andnowhere did he say that centralized planning is essential to socialism.

I make these clarifications as a theoretical background to the currentcontroversy on the economic reforms in China, Vietnam, and the SovietUnion before Yeltsin. When Stalin forcibly collectivized agriculture, heencountered stiff opposition within the Communist Party because therewas no consensus among Soviet Marxists for the total elimination of privateownership. Deng Xiaopeng and Gorbachev could not be justly charged ofbetrayal for restoring private ownership of small enterprises and farms. (Iam worried, however, about Deng�s policy of inviting foreign multinationalsto invest in key sectors of the Chinese economy.)

Centralized planning should be re-examined in the historical perspective.Let us not forget that in the 1930s it was hailed even by Fabians likeBeatrice and Sidney Webb as the paragon of efficiency and economy.Through centralized planning Stalin lifted Russia out of backwardness. Until1928 Soviet Russia was �the basket case of Europe.� Ten years after 1929(the year centralized long-term planning began) it became a leadingindustrial power; another ten years later it became the second nuclearpower. In 1960 the Soviet Union scared the wits out of the United Statesby sending the first rocket into space, thus demonstrating its technologicalsuperiority. That rate of industrial development at such a grand scale hasbeen unmatched anywhere in the capitalist orbit.

Centralized planning was effective at the early stages of industrialization.At a later stage, it became a brake to further growth: inefficient andwasteful. Soviet economic development ground to a halt in the early1980s, providing the rationale for perestroika.

Perestroika in the Soviet Union, �four modernizations� in China, anda similar program in Vietnam would institute the market mechanism in theframework of a socialist economy. Is this a fundamental departure fromMarxism? Marx, it is true, denounced the market mechanism but he was


thinking of the capitalist market. He assumed that the actors in the marketwere big private enterprises. He said nothing about a socialist marketeconomy.

Gorbachev�s ill-fated reforms and the ongoing reforms in China andVietnam aim to establish market relations among state enterprises.Instead of the Stalinist system wherein the central planning commission(GOSPLAN) assigned production quotas and evaluated the performance ofstate enterprises by the speed at which they met their quotas, theenterprises would now be judged by their capacity to sell whatever theyproduce. With this goes the devolution of decision-making to the individualenterprises. If a plant is producing too much of something it cannot sell,it is authorized to shift to another line or develop other lines. There isnothing wrong with this from the Marxist standpoint. It is a more rationalmethod of economic management, especially when the economy hascrossed a certain threshold of development.

What Marx would have found obnoxious is the overwhelming power ofthe technocracy in management. Lenin, as noted earlier, consideredworkers control to be an essential task of the socialist revolution. Hesuspended it during the NEP period, but only as a temporary expedient. Itwas Stalin who elevated it into a dogma. The conditions of the Sovietworkers, in whose behalf the communist party supposedly governed, grewworse because Stalin also snuffed the life out of the trade unions and otherpeople�s organizations. They were turned into docile structures for giving asemblance of popular support for the policies of the state and partybureaucrats.

Khrushchev tried to de-Stalinize, only to find himself cast into thepolitical garbage can by the party bureaucrats who opposed any change.Learning from his mistake, Gorbachev breathed new life to the people�sorganizations and mobilized them against the bureaucracy. This was theessence of glasnost. It created a democratic space for people�sorganizations.

But the Soviet masses, cynical about the Party and swayed by Westernconsumerist advertisements, availed of the space to dismantle socialismitself. This is not sufficient reason for declaring socialist democracy animpossible dream. The lesson that can be drawn from the Sovietexperience is that socialism should keep democracy alive so that people


may articulate their grievances and aspirations and the government mayrespond before it is too late.

Conclusions

Democracy� is the most abused word in the political vocabulary. It hasbeen used to justify repression and elite rule. Lately, however, the narrowbourgeois definition that limits democracy to formal procedures for electingofficials is being broadened in the usage of the popular movement. In theyears to come the ideological struggle will revolve around the conflictbetween two notions of democracy: elite rule and people�s power.

A striking feature of the contemporary political scene is the widespreadcynicism towards government. Hardly anyone trusts the government.�Privatization� is the latest buzz word among technocrats and politicians,implying that even those at the helm regard it as inherently inefficient andcorrupt. The masses, too, see the government as an oppressor. This hasstimulated the proliferation of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) .TheNGOs and private corporations are taking over the traditional functions ofthe state. In a paper for a conference of the Asian Studies Association ofAustralia in 1989,1 described this trend as �the withering away of thestate� and �the revenge of civil society.�

The NGOs on their own cannot be the building blocks for a newdemocracy. They play a democratizing role only to the extent that they areable to heighten the consciousness of the people and help organize amilitant grassroots movement. Partly through their efforts, there hasemerged in the Philippines a multitude of politically-conscious sectoral andcommunity organizations. These people�s organizations (POs) rather thanthe NGOs, are the building blocks for a new democracy. As the mostideologically advanced contingent of the Left, the Marxists should think ofhow to vitalize these people�s organizations.

The capitalist concept of democracy does not extend to the workplace.In the bourgeois republics the dictatorial aspect of the state is subdued inthe political sphere; it is transparent in the workplace. Marxism shouldrenew its campaign for democratization of the workplace, where mostpeople spend a greater part of their active life.


With their wealth of experience in grassroots organizing, FilipinoMarxists are in a good position to elaborate a concept of democracy basedon people�s power. This requires not only the relentless exposure of theauthoritarian dimension of capitalist democracy but also the projection ofa democratic platform where popular assemblies, rather than the trapo-dominated Congress and the profit-oriented mass media, are the chieffiscalizers and sources of initiative.

So far, however, the Philippine Left has confined itself to the worn-outslogan �Expose and Oppose State Repression.� This is important butinadequate. What the country needs is a system of governance that allowsmaximum participation of the militant citizenry. The POs are potentialorgans of democratic power analogous to the Paris Commune of 1871, theRussian Soviets of 1917, and the Turin Factory Councils of the early1920s. Much have been written on the first two, but little is known of thefactory councils. They deserve closer study as an alternative to the Stalinistsystem of centralized control.

The Dutch geographer Anton Pannekoek and the Italian Marxisttheoretician Antonio Gramsci were the most ardent advocate of �councilcommunism.� The latter distinguished the factory council from the tradeunions that are essentially bureaucratic structures dedicated to enlargingtheir members� share in the fruits of capitalist production. The factorycouncils by contrast are aimed enhancing workers� participation inmanagement. Whereas the trade unions would defend the lazy andincompetent, the factory councils eared about technological innovationsand productivity. Gramsci saw them as the embryo of a proletarian statenurtured in the womb of capitalism. For him, proletarian power � or�hegemony� � should be developed here and now, not after a successfulrevolution.

This nurturing of proletarian power entails first of all the democratizationof the revolutionary movement itself A vanguard that tries to manipulate thepeople�s organizations through a network of cadres who take orders fromthe party leadership perpetuates the culture of servility instead of preparingthe proletariat to assume the initiative and participate as a conscious forcein shaping the nation�s destiny.

A rigidly negative outlook which opposes any attempt to develop theeconomy and interprets each political event as the handiwork of the CIA is


counter-productive in the long run. Cynicism is often mistaken as arevolutionary attitude. In fact, it is insidiously conservative. Like theorthodox religions which Marx called �the opium of the people,� it saps thepeople�s faith in themselves.

Moreover, a rigidly negative outlook discourages the workers fromunderstanding the complex production process and learning the art oforganization and management. In the early years of the Soviet Union, thislaid a monumental roadblock to socialist construction. As noted earlier,Lenin could not put workers� control into effect because the Russianproletariat and the Bolshevik party were totally unprepared for the task ofeconomic management.

The Chinese revolution of 1949 was less chaotic because more thana decade before they successfully drove Chiang Kai-shek out of themainland, the communists had set up a parallel government in Yenan. Inthat liberated area they experimented with techniques of socialistmanagement and trained a corps of administrative cadres. They werebetter prepared than the Bolsheviks to assume the functions of government.Of course, the Yenan model cannot be replicated in an archipelagic nationlike the Philippines; and being intrinsically bureaucratic, it is not congenialto democratic principles. Filipino Marxists have to think of how to developthe workers� capability to control and direct the management of enterprisesthrough the people�s organizations.

These are tentative thoughts, not firm conclusions. I present them toinvite thought and discussion about a socialist program for the Philippines;a collective search for an egalitarian alternative to capitalism and ademocratic alternative to Stalinism, bearing in mind the painful lessonsfrom the regimes that crumbled in Eastern Europe. ❁

Documents

Questioning Marx, Critiquing Marxism Reflections on the